The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated
assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse
effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually
exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during
that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to
zero. If it doesn't, then everything we have learned about physics over the
last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a
climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation
might be as follows:

Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and
undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few
internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy
source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis.
What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which
radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs.
Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space
versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in
temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has
an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same
spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon
and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy.
Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused
by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term
average... See above.

Climatologist: But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which
even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would
absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would
have to raise the temperature of the system.

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature
caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long
term average... see above.

Climatologist: That can't be true. I've been measuring temperature at
thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.

Physicist: The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two
factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it
could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a
redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points
more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the
long term temperature average would be... see above.

Climatologist: AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy
that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would
increase temperature.

Physicist: Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the
planet is?

Climatologist: Uhm... no.

Physicist: Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet...
See above.

Climatologist: Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2.

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Ice! If a fluctuation in temperature melted all the ice
less energy would be reflected into space and would instead be absorbed into
the system, raising the temperature. Ha!

Physicist: The ice you are pointing at is mostly at the poles where the
inclination of the radiant energy source is so sharp that there isn't much
energy to absorb anyway. But what little there is would certainly go into
the surface the ice used to cover, raising its temperature. That would
reduce the temperature differential between equator and poles which would
slow down convection processes that move energy from hot places to cold
places. The result would be increased radiance from the planet that would
exceed energy input until the planet cooled down enough to start forming ice
again. As I said before, the change to the system that you propose could
well result in redistribution of energy flows, and in short term temperature
fluctuations, but as for the long term average temperature.... See above.

Climatologist:Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature has to rise!
I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have
committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions
and billions! I can't be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and
the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!

Physicist:Gasp! How much grant money?

Climatologist:Billions. Want some?

Physicist: Uhm...

Climatologist:BILLIONS.

Climatologist: Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to
understand the danger the world was in, though, I decided to do the right
thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to
you....

This is text of a January 29, 2010 blog post
by
davidmhoffer. With the permission of the author, this is submitted
for your consideration in the next issue of The Libertarian Enterprise.